![]() | Peak Oil - Whom to Believe? Part 1 - There's Plenty of Oil, CERAiously | The Oil Drum | Jamais Cascio: Finding a Little Comfort Fifteen Minutes into the Future | ![]() |
![]() | Solar Islands: A new concept for low-cost solar energy at very large scale | The Oil Drum: Europe | Portugal getting a hand on Venezuela's energy riches | ![]() |
Blogroll
- ASPO The official site of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas.
- Energy Bulletin Clearing house for news regarding the peak in global energy supply.
- PowerSwitch Dedicated to raising awareness & discussion of the impending & permanent decline of cheap oil & gas supply.
- ODAC Oil Depletion Analysis Centre working to raise awareness and promote better understanding of the world's oil-depletion problem.
- Global Public Media Public service broadcasting for a post carbon world.
- Post Carbon Institute Learning to live in a low energy world.
- PeakOil.com US site and forum to educate and promote awareness of global hydrocarbon depletion.
- FEASTA The Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability
- Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) This website describes an effective and fair response both to climate change and oil/gas depletion
Other Blogs
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.





GAIA Host Collective
Post 1991 its Russia's production, before it's FSU. To my knowledge, there is no production data publicly available about Russia's production before 1992.
Thank you Khebab.
I should think that would deserve a prominent footnote, as that changes the interpretation of the chart enormously.
Even better would be to stick with FSU instead of conflating what are two quite different data sets.
My experience at TOD over the last 2 years has taught me that unfortunately Khebab will publish very misleading graphs if he thinks he can make a point with them.
A few weeks back somebody with a decent stats background completely lost his cool here on account of one of Khebab's masterpieces. Not that it did any good.
Khebab, do you have any formal training in statistical methods?
If so, one of these days the God of Regressions or perhaps the Devil is going to singe your behind! ;-)
My experience has been that Khebab is an objective scientist, interested in mathematically modeling complex production situations, who has enormously contributed to the Peak Oil debate.
On the other hand, my impression is that you have nothing to offer other than useless spurious criticisms.
Asebius, perhaps you should state your statistical background, so that we can determine your level of veracity.
Strong statements! I do have a PhD in Signal Processing so I think I know a few things about statistics!
I don't recall that, do you have a link?
Beside, I don't see how bad data sources have nothing to do with performing misleading statistical analysis. In any case it won't change the outcome for Russia.
Don't forget also that most contributors are doing this work on their free time and have a demanding day work so mistakes are possible (I often find mistakes in peer-reviewed articles almost on a daily basis).
I have prepared a comprehensive list of papers and articles that Asebius has contributed to the Peak Oil debate. Here is that list:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3835#comment-329504
Your reply had me laughing...
LOL!!!
Oh those lovely confidence intervals. Oh how they inspire confidence!!
Phd or not. I flatly do not believe that you have formal training in statistical methods.
I predict you will soon have a new screen name.
Look, I've been on this website long enough to know that answering to this kind of negative comments is a complete waste of my time.
I stand by what I said and my confidence intervals do represent where 95% of listed peak oil forecasts are seeing future crude oil + NGL supply, nothing more.
I also strongly suggest that you open a blog yourself (it's free: http://www.blogger.com/) and share with us your vast knowledge of Statistics. You can already count me as a frequent commentator :).
Khebab...if this is Hothgar, I may have to pull out my lamprey graphic again.
or present him with the "blowfly award" (only good for eating shit and bothering people ;-)
Asebius? Nice moniker. Why don't we just shorten the phonetics a little and call a spade a spade or let an ass be an ass, as the case may be.
You provide zero objective information on your own while you flame professional contributors.
The task of timing the peak, exactly, may well be beyond anyone. If Deffreyes missed it by a few hundred thousand barrels per day, then he missed it. But it doesn't really change the fact that peak oil is still coming out in the wash and that Khebab, Deffreyes, and others, have been far more accurate in predicting world oil production than known energy optimists -- CERA et all.
The price of oil alone is an indicator how dear and scarce supplies have become -- even in an age of undulating plateau.
The problem, in general, is not enough people are aware of the kind of analysis going on here and far too many people are happy to gobble up the kind of obsfucation you blow out. But like any other cloud of smoke, it will all too soon dissipate.
The casualty, for your kind of disinformation, are those poor souls who were disoriented by it and failed to prepare or respond adequately.
Assbeass, like other worm-tongues before you, are henceforth banished...
Asebius,
I dispatched that particular commenter quite easily. He essentially didn't know what he was talking about. Khebab's model results are perfectly valid. A model itself is a best guess estimate, much different than purely statistics-driven bootstraps.
This is what I said at the time, and if you don't like it, try to argue it now, I noticed you did not back then:
Oh man Asebius, do you have nothing positive to contribute to these discussions? I find all of your comments unnecessary and counter productive, mostly I doubt you have any idea what you're actually talking about.
The people here at TOD do a great job of putting together complex info for the public's awareness on their own time, just because they feel people ought to know the trouble they got themselves into. What you're doing doesn't help the purpose of this intellectual forum, perhaps there is a forum where they welcome people who have nothing to contribute to an actual discussion, but I don't know where you would look.
I don't contribute much because I prefer to read more knowledgeble people's opinions. I do not count you as one of them.
Thanks for all the great analysis Khebab et Al
Asebius - wtf are you driving at here? Khebab is one of my most trusted sources. Sure we are all liable to make mistakes from time to time - but I'm not aware of many mistakes that Khebab has made. I'm not sure if you are being serious here or not. But one thing you have to realise is that running up charts and responding to comments like this takes time.
Splitting out Russian from FSU production is something we'd love to do - perhaps you could donate the data?
The relative heights of FSU and Russian production are actually quite irrelevant. What is highly relevant is that the territory currently known as Russia is struggling to increase production, or, has chosen to not increase production, perhaps rationalising that producing 5% less for twice the price makes good sense.
So what is your opinion on Russian oil production?
I don't think it has a lot of impact as far as C+C is concerned, I don't see any major differences with this ASPO chart:
Their peak is ~250 kbpd lower than mine.
Here is an overlay of my chart and Rembrandt's chart (Figure 68):
Rembrandt is using BP data (C+C+NGL) for 1985-2006 and ASPO data (C+C?) prior to 1985. We can see that using FSU data (EIA) prior to 1992 is higher by maybe 5% but it's a relatively reasonable approximation.
Here is my overlay considering FSU:

I have a non-shocked fit in green and a shocked fit in red.
http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2005/11/fsu-oil-shock-model.html
Notice that Khebab's data drops a bit lower than the data I used after 1990, but then it caught back up by 2000.
The shock perturbations:

This is not assuming any new discoveries, only discoveries up to when I generated the chart in 2005.
L. F. Buz (aka Buzz) Ivanhoe included the former USSR in a 1998 newsletter. Buz told me that he had some editing help from Dr. Walter Youngquist which included a discussion of the term to use for "Russia"
http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/Ivanhoe_98-3.pdf